A Comparison of Vibroacoustic Response of Isotropic Plate with Attached Discrete Patches and Point Masses Having Different Thickness Variation with Different Taper Ratios

<div>Comparison of radiation efficiency of plate with different tapers (<svg height="11.8174pt" id="M132" style="vertical-align:-3.1815pt" version="1.1" viewbox="-0.0498162 -8.6359 17.7712 11.8174" width="17.7712pt" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)"><path d="M828 650H570L564 622C646 614 650 609 634 524L604 366H253L281 524C296 608 308 615 382 622L388 650H132L126 622C211 615 214 609 198 524L121 122C106 42 102 35 23 28L17 0H276L282 28C196 35 191 40 206 122L243 324H597L559 123C544 42 537 35 452 28L446 0H710L716 28C632 35 628 43 643 122L719 524C735 610 741 615 822 622L828 650Z" id="g113-73"></path><glyph.data ascent="3473" descent="-2876" horiz-adv-x="840" vert-adv-y="840"></glyph.data></g><g transform="matrix(.0091,0,0,-0.0091,10.075,3.132)"><path d="M782 650H541L536 618L564 614C597 609 604 600 584 574C535 508 486 451 437 395C394 473 361 533 343 575C331 605 335 610 375 615L400 618L407 650H156L147 618C222 612 230 608 267 537L375 330C277 214 186 117 163 96C108 43 97 38 27 32L18 0H265L274 32L251 35C204 41 202 47 224 80C264 138 327 213 397 293L504 80C520 48 516 42 472 36L440 32L433 0H707L716 32C627 38 622 43 581 121L455 361L629 548C685 606 696 610 775 618L782 650Z" id="g50-89"></path><glyph.data ascent="3443" descent="-2856" horiz-adv-x="800" vert-adv-y="800"></glyph.data></g></svg> = 0.0, 0.3, 0.6, and 0.9) with attached one point mass for case 4.</div>

Shock and Vibration

fig14

Figure 14

Figure 14: A Comparison of Vibroacoustic Response of Isotropic Plate with Attached Discrete Patches and Point Masses Having Different Thickness Variation with Different Taper Ratios 

Figure 14 | A Comparison of Vibroacoustic Response of Isotropic Plate with Attached Discrete Patches and Point Masses Having Different Thickness Variation with Different Taper Ratios 